it includes about $6 billion in cuts. the vote is expected to take place around 6:00 p.m. eastern time today and then it will go to the senate, where they are expected to vote on that on thursday. we have been told that senator john mccain, republican of arizona, could bring an amendment to the floor to have a separate funding resolution for the pentagon to keep them funded through september 30. we will be watching for that. today, there are several hearings also happening this week on capitol hill. general petraeus is before the armed services committee right now. began at 9:30 a.m. eastern time. we are also covering secretary geithner, who will be -- live coverage on c-span.org.

leaders and minority whip limited to five minutes each. but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. jackson, for five minutes. mr. jackson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the greatest threat to our democracy is unemployment. we all know the numbers. we all have far too many constituents that don't have jobs and can't provide for their families. too many americans are without work and more and more of them are losing hope. unemployment benefits are running out. fear is creeping in. for some of the unemployed, their tireless job search has been coming up empty because some employers won't even consider them for openings. recently "the new york times" reported that one employer listed a job that included the caveat, quote, no unemployed candidate will be considered at all, unquote.

and that a texas electronic company said it won't, quote, consider, review anyone not currently employed regardless of the reason, unquote. it is reminiscent of a time when signs read, blacks or women need not apply. mr. speaker, i think it's high time we fix that. how are the unemployed supposed to find work if they don't get considered for a j.b. job? how do we expect the unemployment rate to go down when the unemployed aren't even allowed to compete for a job? along with congressman john lewis, i'm introducing legislation that will amend the civil rights act of 1964 to make it illegal for employers to discriminate against applicants because they are currently or were currently unemployed. the civil rights act of 2011 will not give a job to those who are unemployed. but it will give those who are unemployed through no fault of their own the opportunity to compete for a job on the merits of their ability. mr. speaker, we talk in pleasantries and political

correctness about these, difficult economic times. we hold hearings on how to move america forward. recently the bureau of labor statistics had to modify its survey to include responses reporting a duration of unemployment over two years. we are making room for the reality of chronic unemployment in america in very real ways while promising it will get better. i think we need to do more to make sure that people have opportunities. nearly 9% of americans right now are unemployed. that's 13.9 million americans that we represent as members of congress who are looking for the opportunity to pursue the american dream. they are looking for washington and to washington for leadership and to keep things from getting any worse. they are writing our offices, begging us to help us start america. they are looking for a handout, they are looking for a way out. just a chance they will take -- just a chance so they can take care of the rest. they are hoping that the next interview will mean a new start. mr. speaker, the job market is troublesome. but we cannot allow companies

to arbitrarily pick who will come out of the economic crisis by disqualifying unemployed workers. it should not be their right to discriminate this way. we as a nation face triumphs and challenges together. it seems to me to allow such a practice is counterintuitive. why create jobs in those -- if those americans currently without jobs are not eligible? just because an individual is unlucky to be laid off or has the misfortune to graduate into a jobless market does not mean we should cast them aside. this unemployment practice adds insult to injury for americans desperately looking for jobs. college graduates who debated their education was worth the cost, for families trying to make more on less. those who live on main street of america have very little to do with the onslaught of our economic crisis. in response, they are doing what generations before us have taught, carrying on, hoping that the darkness will give way to light. mr. speaker, if we allow employers to block consideration for those who are unemployed, we let that light get a little dimmer.

we allow the american dream to be tarnished. we send a message to the american people, those who are currently unemployed, and those who want a bad break away from unemployment, that we will bail out banks but not support them as they fight to take care of their families of the the civil rights act and amendments that have followed demonstrate what makes america exceptional. here regardless of the color of your skin, the god you pray to, your ethnicity, your age, or sex, you will be judged on your performance. we haven't always lived up to our principles but it is the collective momentum toward these values that make america great. discrimination against any american is an affront to the very idea of america. a new class of citizens now needs protection from the superficial bias that is not based on the ability to perform. using current employment status as a requirement for application or consideration is shameful. 13.9 million americans currently unemployed, that means 13.9 million americans are considered by some employers to be no longer viable for employment. they are dismissed out of hand.

but, mr. speaker, i refuse to believe that every unemployed individual is unqualified for a job. it is an arbitrary way of narrowing an applicant pool by finding a loophole that allows termination. i ask each and every member of congress to say to those 13.9 million americans who are unemployed you are not forgotten, your chance has not passed. we should pass the civil rights act of 2011. we should not allow the opportunities that all americans deserve to be taken away, current joblessness should not disqualify you from unemployment. i thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, for five minutes. ms. ros-lehtinen: i thank the speaker for the time. mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize and support the efforts under way throughout my wonderful state of florida to honor the courage, the achievement, and the legacy of cuban americans in the united states.

the following cities in addition to the florida house of representatives have passed resolutions in support of designating a day to recognize the many valuable contributions of cuban americans to the united states. highalea, florida city, west miami, miami beach, the city of miami, pembrook pines, homestead, and key west. cuban americans have had a profound and lasting influence on the history, values, and culture of the united states since the arrival of the earliest cuban settlers more than 400 years ago in st. augustine, florida. according to the 2007 census survey, 251,000 cuban american owned businesses generated $51 billion to our economy. several local south florida municipalities have recognized the important contributions that the cuban american community has made to the

economic and cultural development of our great nation. cuban americans have become dedicated public servants having held posts at the highest levels of government. cubans settling in the united states look at this nation, our wonderful united states, with grathtude -- gratitude and many have risked life and limb to defend this bastion of freedom and democratcy. countless cuban americans have served bravely in all branches of the united states armed forces and have fought honorably in many wars. one such hero is armando who voluntarily enlisted in the united states marine corps and served two tours of duty in vietnam. he was also a volunteer for the brothers to the rescue, a pro-democracy organization whose mission is to promote and support the efforts of the people of cuba to free them selves from the cuban -- free themselves from the cuban dictatorship through active nonviolence. while he and his fellow brothers to the rescue

volunteers were carrying out such a mission on february 24, 1996, the cuban regime ordered cuban military jets to shoot down their unarmed civilian aircraft. the shoot down resulted in the unjust killings of carlos, armando, mario, and pablo. last month i wrote a letter to secretary clinton and attorney general holder asking the administration to take immediate action to indict fidel and raul castro for their role in this horrible shoot down. the united states must make it clear that we will not stand for the cuban tyrannies' manipulation and unapologetic crimes against american people nor for its abuses against its own people of cuba. no matter how the regime and its enablers try to spin t. the cuban tyranny remains as oppressive and uncompromising as ever. its methodical release of

exiled political prisoners is nothing but an attempt to curry favor with those the regime seeks business. this weekend's conviction and sentencing of u.s. citizens alan gross to 15 years in prison is a clear reminder of this. this deplorable act is another illustration of the regime's willingness to use human beings as political pawns to advance its destructive agenda. the united states and all responsible nations must demand immediate relief of alan gross and all prisoners who remain wrongfully imprisoned in castro's gulag. i am proud to say that despite the challenges and the passing years, cuban americans remain undeterred in our fight for freedom, justice, and democracy. mr. speaker, i join in the support of these resolutions and again urge that a date be set to honor the courage, the achievements, and the legacy of cuban americans in the glorious

united states. thank you very much for the time, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley, for five minutes. mr. quigley: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, montana is the home to the second largest coal plant west of the mississippi. one box car full of coal is burned every five minutes. the burning coal creates mercury, aluminum and ars nick which is pumped out of the factory and into the air. the chemicals caught in the air are caught in the scrubbers and dumped with coal ash into settling ponds. these are shallow artificial lakes of concentrated toxicity which leech these poison into ack with you phiers. the sludge flows from the surrounding towns and countryside bubbling up, cracking the floor of a local grocery store. ranchers in eastern montana are suing the plant for damages.

noxious water is the only liquid that fills their wells and stock ponds. james, a renowned climate scientist it will cause the extension of 400 species. but coal strip burns on. why? because we have no national energy plan. and because there are currently low federal enforceable regulations specific to coal ash. this lack of federally enforceable safeguards are exactly what's led to the disaster in tennessee where a dam holding more than one billion gallons of toxic coal ash failed. the t.v.a. disaster destroyed 300 acres, dozens of homes, killed fish and other wildlife, and poisoned the rivers. from tennessee to montana and across the nation, the story is the same. we have no national conservation plan. no national energy policy. no regulatory enforcement authority. what's worse today we are faced with a bill, h.r. 910, the energy tax prevention act,

which purports to protect citizens from taxation. in reality this bill is a death sentence not only to our land, air, water, animals, and plants but to humans. this bill overturns proven -- it repeals the greenhouse gas reporting rules and removes the environmental protection agency's authority to require energy efficiency at power plants and refineries. this bill simply says that science doesn't matter. i stand here today to refute that claim and to protect the integrity of science. it is this science, the facts and figures, that have led hundreds ever scientists to confirm that global warming is real. over 200 pier review scientific studies have found that global warming is real and may contribute to it. to this date, zero pier -- peer review studies have found otherwise. the environmental protection agency does in fact have the

authority to regulate greenhouse gases. and it is this science that led the congress to pass the clean air act, the act which designated the e.p.a. as the body charged with overseeing, adapting, and implementing these regulations. in the coming months, e.p.a. will begin regulating greenhouse gases from certain emitters for the first time. these regulations have become hugely controversial and sadly political. these rules seek to combat man-made climate change. man-made climate change that has melted our polar icecaps, raised the level of our oceans, and modifying our seasonal temperatures. man-made climate change will alter the dur racial of our growing season causing multiyear droughts. man-made climate change allowing particulate matters to infiltrate our children's lungs, making them suffer from lifelong asthma and die earlier. instead, here we are, ignoring cries from health and medical professionals who asked that

members of this body to fulfill the promise of clean healthy air to all americans to breathe. support full implementation of the clean air act and resist any efforts to weaken, delay, or blue dog progress toward a healthier future for all americans. request from former senior military officials who wrote just last week, quote, america's dependence on oil constitutes a clear and present danger to the security and welfare of the united states. and that as former senior mulltary officials we are concerned about congressional efforts to undermine the environmental protection agency's regulatory authority, that is critical to reducing our dependence on oil. mr. speaker, we could not afford the cost of energy tax prevention act, lost and devastated ecocies tells, lost jobs, and lost lives. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg, for two minutes.

mr. walberg: thank you, mr. speaker. let me cut to the point, gas prices have skyrocketed at the worst possible time, the economy is in a slump and people are hurting. the administration and congressional democrats are making the problem worse with their burdensome energy regulations that destroy jobs and drive up costs. democrats in the white house are blocking commonsense reforms that would allow for more targeted energy exploration here at home which would lead to lower gas prices and additional job creation and greater security. three weeks ago i had the privilege of sitting in the office of benjamin netia hew in -- he ended by saying that he was greatly concerned that america was unwilling at this time to do what was necessary to make sure that we had an energy plan of independence from, as he called it, the earthquake zone of the middle east. and i agree. so i'm joining with my colleagues, my republican colleagues, their common sense

in pro-growth in proposing an alternative. i believe we need to have more exploration in alaska. so i co-sponsored the american energy independence and price reduction act. i believe in h.r. 909, a road map to america's energy future. and the government should stop the slow permitting process for drilling in the gulf. so i join with representatives scletion and others in the house to urge the president to do just that. mr. speaker, the current energy policy is one of overregulation and it's not working. we must work to change that now. i stand ready to work with my colleagues to create an energy policy that lowers energy prices and allows for more job creation. the people of my district and of this great country are demanding nothing less. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman

from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. this morning thousands of people on capitol hill turned to n.p.r., radio or the website to find out the latest developments on the horrific situation in japan with the potential nuclear meltdown, with the fast-moving events in the middle east. this is why the pew survey revealed yesterday that while media across the board is declining, broadcast television news, newspapers, radio, that we are watching a renaissance as far as public broadcasting, particularly n.p.r., which is increasing its audience, its revenues and its reporting staff.

but the health and vitality of n.p.r. is not a reason to slash the financial support for public broadcasting. first and foremost, it is a minuscule part of the budget, less than one half a cent per day for each american. but more important, this is the type of infrastructure america needs right now. the public broadcasting support provides a unique service that is not available on commercial television. the education, culture, news, even the boring news is an area where there is no commercial market. that's why you will search 500 stations in maine on cable and satellite to find that type of programming that's available for news and for educating our

children. more significant, the amount of money that flows from public broadcasting to n.p.r. is a tiny fraction. most of the public broadcasting support that is provided by congress goes to local stations with particular emphasis on rural and small-town america. taking an example of my home state of oregon where its award-winning public oregon public broadcasting, it costs 11 times more to broadcast to the far eastern regions in burnes, oregon, than it is in metropolitan portland. and that is a pattern repeated coast to coast. rural and small-town america relies more heavily on public broadcasting. it doesn't have the population base to ever provide it for itself. slashing public broadcasting funding is not going to stop public broadcasting in new york

or washington, d.c., seattle, los angeles or even portland, oregon. what it will do is make the programming less rich and it will reduce the ability to provide those services in the outlying areas. even the most recent flap about the media ambush of a former n.p.r. fundraiser who produced an 11-minute video that appeared to be very damning as far as public broadcasting concern, well, it took n.p.r. to do an in depth study, reviewing the entire two-hour conversation captured on tape to find out that not the edited 11-minute version was misleading, trying to portray the point of view of the ambush journalism. this is the same guy who was

caught by law enforcement officials trying to illegally bug the office of senator mary landrieu in louisiana. found that in the course of two hours it was very clear reviewing the entire item that it had been inappropriately edited to suggest that there was an acceptance or thought it was amusing that there was somehow an attempt to impose sherrod law across the country. ignored the fact that the n.p.r. employee made it clear that there was a firewall between any contributions and influencing the editorial content. that's why n.p.r. and pbs are the most trusted names in broadcasting. why 78% in a recent poll of americans said they wanted public broadcasting support,

maintained or even increased and indeed 2/3 of the republicans wanted support maintained and increased. i hope my republican colleagues will listen to the public and support this vital resource. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. nugent, for five minutes. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, it's with a heavy heart that i rise today to honor the life of corporal jonathan w. taylor. four years to the day of his graduation from boot camp, corporal taylor died. the age of 23. he bravely gave his life while conducting combat operations in helmand province, afghanistan. growing up, corporal taylor always knew he wanted to be a

united states marine. as a student at la canto high school, he was part of the rotc program. he was an active member of the sea cadet program out of yankeetown. in october, 2007, corporal taylor was deployed on his first combat tour on operation iraqi freedom. following that tour he was deployed to support operation enduring freedom in afghanistan three separate times. while his unit was not deployed during his second to last tour, corporal taylor bravely volunteered to go back to afghanistan to continue the fight with his marines. corporal taylor was laid to rest today with honors in arlington national cemetery. over his career, his awards included the marine corps of good conduct medal, the national defense service medal,

the afghanistan campaign medal, global war on terrorism medal, the nato medal for isaf afghanistan and the purple heart. now, beside his fellow brothers in uniform, his parents, mark and debbie, have proud to say they have seen their son off on his final deployment, his final tour of duty. corporal taylor courageously made the ultimate sacrifice for his marines and his fellow americans. as a country, as a nation we owe our fallen heroes, their families a debt that can never be repaid. it is our duty to always remember that these sacrifices were made on behalf of all americans, that our brave young

men and women in uniform are clear examples of what makes this nation so great. today, i'm humbled to have the opportunity to introduce this house to a true american hero. corporal jonathan w. taylor, god bless you and god whether he is your service to this nation -- and god bless to your service to this nation. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. kaptur, for five minutes. ms. kaptur: thank you, mr. speaker. the proposed south korea trade deal is the largest nafta style trade agreement proposed in 15 years. some people in washington, including president obama, support this agreement. congress should not. most importantly, the nafta-korea deal will result in more job loss across countless

communities in our country. the u.s. international trade commission studied this agreement and determined that it will be a net job loser for our country. just like the nafta deal was, just like the china deal was, just like all the failed nonreciprocal trade deals our nation has negotiated over the last 25 years. yes, a handful of companies will come out ahead, and they have a lot of power in washington, but as a whole our country loses. we've heard a lot about deficits lately. this deal with the koreans will only put us deeper in the hole. why would congress do this again to the american people and to the american economy? last year, the united states ran up another half trillion dollar trade deficit with the world, and this past quarter one of the largest in history. now, both american and korean estimates predict that this deal will only add to our

deficit. these nafta-type trade deals translate into net job loss. even the president doesn't claim that the deal will create new jobs. that's because it won't. in fact, it will cost jobs. america needs trade reciprocity. we need balance at a minimum where our exports balance our imports and hopefully exceed our imports. we need to make goods in america again, not outsource more jobs. it's obvious to everyone we have a job crisis in america. across our economy the real rate of unemployment and underemployment is over 17%. this agreement again will negatively impact employment. in my district alone the agreement threatens thousands of jobs. why would america do this again to our people? more outsourcing, more job loss. my district is at the center of

the automotive sector, and our company supplies manufacturers from alabama to detroit to new jersey to california. this deal is bad for the entire u.s. automotive sector, the entire sector. in december the administration negotiated with the korean government a supplemental agreement on the automotive sector, and this side deal was supposed to ensure fairness to our auto companies but it simply leaves too many unresolved concerns on the table and it doesn't provide reciprocity. there's no threshold measure that if we take half a million korean cars, which we already do, and they only take 6,000 of ours, which is going on right now, that they have any requirement at all to actually increase imports. we ought to fix what's wrong with the existing system rather than trade away more of our substance. there's also a strange logic that somehow we level the playing field by allowing the south korean government subject our cars to additional regulations within four years. and there is no threshold measure that we actually are

balancing the huge trade deficit we already have with that nation. there's another loophole. the cars don't really have to be made in south korea. nearly 2/3 of the actual content can come from, guess where, communist china and others who are relentlessly engaged in predatory and illegal trading practices. the automotive sector isn't the only industry that is at risk. multiple sectors will be impacted, including textiles, electronics and metal products and that's just in manufacturing. beef producers better pay attention because they're going to lose under this deal as well. i look forward to the day when this president or any president smits a trade agreement that will actual -- submits a trade agreement that will actually have trade net across this country. we surely need the jobs. yes, trade can help fuel economic growth but we need agreements that yields reciprocity and puts america on a level trade playing field. nafta style korean free trade

agreement simply doesn't meet that test. this deal is over 400 pages long and that's without the annexes to the agreement. the american people should read it and so should congress. america needs jobs here at home, not more job outsourcing, and surely not more trade deficits. we need reciprocity and it will be the first time in a quarter century. that should be our target, not more job loss in america. mr. speaker, i yield back my remaining time. . the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. sanchez, for five minutes. ms. sanchez: mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize the honorable joseph he could he bell for his 39 years of public service to the people of lakewood, california. joe began his service to lakewood as a member of the lakewood recreation and community services commission in 1972.

and in 1990 he began the first of his five terms on the lakewood city council. after 21 productive years of service on the council, joe is retiring from public service to spend more quality time with his family. joe and his wife pat have called lakewood home since 1963, raising three wonderful children and in the patriots sess becoming proud -- process becoming proud grandparents and great grandparents. as an active leader in his community, joe has a hand in the founding -- had a hand in the founding of many local organizations such as the lakewood youth hall of fame. joe continue tobs a member of the hall of fame board of electors which is charged with recognizing lakewood's young high school and collegiate stand outathletes. throughout his time on the city council as mayor, he made his his priority to ensure that lakewood remain safe, family friendly, and a thriving community.

joe was instrumental in bringing together the resources needed to make the lakewood state-of-the-art sheriff station a reality, and was integral to developing several crime prevention programs that have made our community safe. over the past two decades, joe has worked tirelessly to make certain lakewood operates on firm financial footing and never outside of its fiscal means. while the struggling economy has impacted many cities throughout southern california, lakewood has managed to maintain funding for all city services in capital improvement projects. in addition, lakewood has managed to be a leading destination for businesses and new business development. joe's involvement in public service reaching far beyond the confines of the city's council chamber. joe is a dedicated member of lakewood's rotary club, having served for many years as the coordinator of the rotary club's annual project shepherd holiday assistance program for families in need.

under his leadership, project shepherd aided hundreds of families each year with the help of volunteers of all ages from lakewood schools, churches, and youth organizations. he was named rotarian of the year in 1995. one of his joys. lakewood rest department was serving as a volunteer coach of 8 and 9-year-old youngsters in basketball and football. he received the mayor's award for 11 seasons of volunteer coaching. he has helped various leadership -- held various leadership positions including president of the california contract cities association, president of the greater los angeles county investigator control district, and president of the private industry council of southeast los angeles county. joe sits on the lakewood regional medical center and lake gad family ymca board of directors. joe has been a proud member of the american legion post 496 for the past 19 years. from one public servant to

another, i praise mayor joseph for his service and dedication to the city of lakewood and to the community. lakewood would not be the community it is today without him. i want to thank him for his years of service and wish him the best of luck as he moves forward in new endeavors. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott, for five minutes. mr. mcdermott: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, four days ago a huge earthquake and tsunami hit japan. i was sort of surprised last night when we came in and there was no resolution recognizing the problems of the japanese people and the terror and the difficulties they are dealing with at this time. so i want to come today to rise in support of them as they cope

with this tremendous tragedy and the challenges that both the earthquake and the tsunami have created for them. the last 10 years or so i have been the chair of the japanese caucus in the congress and i have gotten to know many members well. i was a member of this commission some years ago when kobe had a huge earthquake and devastation that took $100 billion to recover from. so i was sort of brought up short by what happened when i saw it on television and thought of my friends and i immediately started trying to call them. i couldn't find them. i only this morning got in touch with a friend of mine. matusata and i have been

friends and i have been to his home a few miles from sendai city, where the earthquake center of this eempt was. he's well. his family is well. he said his friends are also safe. and his house is still standing. so for many people they have escaped the terror of this but there are thousands and thousands of people who are struggling with this and the japanese people have showed a resilience which is amazing. when the government said there is going to be rolling blackouts in tokyo, we need to conserve electricity, the japanese conserved electricity so quickly they didn't have the rolling blackouts. 7 that's how they came together -- that's how they came together in the interest of the common good in japan. washington state, where i come from, has the third largest japanese population in the united states, only california and hawaii have more. as i said we are the sister city with kobe. when that hit, it was shock for everyone in seattle because we

also live on the ring of fire around the pacific ocean that we have seen strike so recently . not only in japan but in new zealand. sometimes you can't believe it in a place like that, you know it can happen any time, but you still go on with your life. sort of denying that it's real. after the japanese earthquake in kobe, there was criticism of the government. you didn't plan enough. they have been planning for this for the last 10 years, but nobody can plan for an 8.9 richter scale earthquake. that's just too much. i think that it is important to remember the japanese are not just good allies, they are good friends. to many of us they are brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, some of them are among my very best friends. this tragedy as it continues to

unfold, it's just what -- to think of what life is like for those people who are alive and under the rubble. or the homeless. imagine, you have a life, it's a nice life. you are working. going to school, your kids are growing up, and suddenly you have no food, no heat, no water, and you're in the freezing cold. we have had military bases in japan for a long time, luckily they were close by so they could immediately move some of the aircraft carriers and other ships into -- in to deliver relief aid. it is at that time when you realize, in fact their government has actually realized, that fighting about some of the things politically they fight about are not so important. what's really important is the basics of life being provided to everyone in the country. this is a national disaster that has been complicated by another factor that we have to consider in the united states, and that's the whole question of nuclear power and what

happens to nuclear power plants. we have nuclear power plants in this country that are sitting near earthquake zones. so this is not something that is something we can say, well, that's over there. 12 hours away. that is, in fact, very near to us here in this country. for the japanese, the threat of nuclear contamination, radiation, is a special horror. because they suffered in hiroshima and nagasaki, the only use of nuclear weapons an the fallout that followed that. today millions of japanese are still trying to absorb what they are seeing and valiantly trying to control the damage. our thoughts and prayers go to the japanese people. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, miss speier, for five minutes.

ms. speier: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. speier: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to discuss a epidemic that is flying too far under the radar. the bullying of children with special needs. bullying has gotten a fair amount of attention in recent years. our nation was shocked by the story of tyler, a gay rutgers student who jumped off the george washington bridge after being bullied by his peers. earlier this month, "dateline nbc" ran a special called, "quote my kid would never bully." in it hidden cameras were used so parents could watch their children react to several different bullying situations set up by "dateline." the results were not great. last week the president and first lady held a white house conference on bullying. what we haven't focused on is who gets bullied the most.

and you might be surprised by this. it's children with special needs. in fact, two times as many children with special needs are taunted every day in school as children who are normal. tomorrow i will be co-hosting a briefing with congresswoman kathy mcmorris rodgers, herself the parent of a special need child, who discuss the heartbreaking issue. we'll be joined by lauren potter, an actress on the hit show "glee" who has down syndrome and who will share her personal stories as well. we will be highlighting a report by ability did the past.org, best buddies, and special olympics, this report shines a bright light on this epidemic. here in congress it seems there are as many reports as minutes in the day, but too often they end up collecting dust instead of inspiring action. in this case we cannot allow that to happen.

bullying and harassment sponsors a climate of fear and disrespect that can seriously impair the physical and sige logical health of its victims and create conditions that negatively affect their learning. for special needs children who already face tremendous challenges, adding this extra burden is simply unacceptable. those with special needs are more likely to be targets, either because their differences singled them out in the classroom or because they have difficulty in communicating and reading social cues. let me share with you a story from the report. these are the words of a mother of an 11-year-old girl with down syndrome. my daughter is wonderful, adorable, sweet child with down syndrome. the bullying she encounters started in elementary school and has followed her through middle school. everyone makes a big deal about their children being bullied at school, and it is a big deal. however it's always the normal children that you hear about.

who stands up for the children who are like my daughter? it was this sense of helplessness that led james jones, whose daughter suffers from cerebral palsy, to confront her bullies on a florida school bus in 2008. the numbers are just as disturbing. a study in the british journal of learning support -- found that 60% of students with special needs reported being bullied compared to 25% of the general student population. researchers have discovered that students with disabilities were more worried about school safety and being injured or harassed by other peers compared to students without a disability. the national autistic society reports that 40% of children with autism and 60% of those with as perfectinger's syndrome have experienced bullying. it's time for congress to stand up and to speak up for these children and their families. in the coming weeks i will be introducing legislation to

tackle the issue head on. under this legislation schools that receive federal funds will be required to report the number of i.n.s. dents of bullying and whether the victims have special needs. in addition, federal funds used for bullying programs will be required to include content that specifically addresses the bullying of those with special needs. i hope we can begin a national conversation to ensure this epidemic goes silent no more. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: pursuant t

housing secretary, on your screen. live coverage here on c-span. >> that is an important element of our recommendation. one of the clear reasons we ended up in this crisis is that there were no consistent from a strong standards for servicing those mortgages, how first mortgages interact with seconds. we have fragmented set of standards that might come from individual settlements with various states or various agencies. that would be an negative result. also put to the fact that, for would alsowners -- i

point to the fact that, many homeowners have not been given the options that they should have been. there were not contacted by fha -- they were not contacted by fha. it has potentially lengthens the foreclosure process. a significant part of what we're aiming for is to speed up the process, to make it better and to get resolution for the homeowners and for the markets as well. when the homeowner has to contact the bank multiple times, when paperwork is lost, it is not good for anyone in the process. it is important that these standards to the establish -- get established. >> but me follow up. i think one of the insights of the report -- let me follow up. i think one of the insights of the report, which should have been more obvious to us -- we,

the nation, congress regulators -- we were obsessed with home ownership. rental property, affordable rental property, multi family was sort of a distant second, a far distant second. this report says that we have to have a balance. many people, the best form of housing for them is affordable, decent and the housing. our goal should be to provide people with the options of that they can choose the best form of housing for their family, their proximity to work, their lifestyle. i'm glad you commented upon this. there should be a trust fund devoted to trying to build and construct affordable housing for relatively low-income americans to make it affordable to them and affordable to all of us. i wonder if he might comment upon -- you might come upon this aspect of the report. >> it's very important, senator.

thank you for raising this. one of the reasons -- many folks missed this. as we have gone through the housing crisis, we have seen rents come down at the top of the market and vacancies increase. at the same time, at the lower end of the market, for those at the lowest and moderate incomes, rents have increased to the point where, between 2007 a&e 2009, we saw the single-greatest increase we've ever seen in the study we do every two years. clearly, the range of options that we are providing as not been strong enough to meet those needs. the need for some kind of targeted, focused effort that improves on many of the shortcomings that we had in

affordable housing goals, a much more targeted, transparent way of meeting those needs, we think would be helpful in significantly reversing declines in affordability we have seen through the crisis while, at the same time, protecting against of the negative impacts. >> thank you. senator corker? >> thank you. it is good to hear from you. i know that the administration has laid out three options. i am one of those folks that believes the administration -- we work best when the administration lays out something clear and then we offer to add to it. we have made a lot of mistakes when 535 folks try to craft something on their own without supervision. we end up with major problems du

secretary geithner, you have laid -- we end up with major problems. secretary geithner, you have laid out three options. which one do you like best? >> i cannot answer that. we have to consult with your colleagues on how to do this. after a period of debate and discussion and further exploration of these options, i think it will make sense for us to tell you what we think makes sense. what is the best mix? what is the best alternative. i expect we will take that step. >> i understand that. it is kind of a punt. you're letting those three options laid out there for people to comment on them. the second and third options involved pricing risk. the first option, to a limited degree, does.

if we can price risk effectively, is there any need for government involvement in this kind of self-predicting -- for government involvement? it is kind of self-predicting. if you can press the options appropriately, there would not need to be -- price the options appropriately, there would not need to be government involvement. >> there are couple arguments for having a government guarantee. first, the affordable access argument. second, in terms of how an economy can best whether bang recessions and house price collapses -- weather recessions and house price collapses. in option one, the fha could dramatically expand what it

does during a crisis, providing some protection against a deep recession. in that auction, the government would be left with a lot of exposure to risk -- option, the government would be left with a lot of exposure to risk. my suggestion, senator, is to look very carefully at the impact you have on small community banks, the ultimate exposure to the taxpayer, how much flexibility you have to protect the economy, protect the innocent from the kind of mistakes you might see in the future crises. look at the moral hazard risk. remember any guarantee needs to be separated from political influence from banks, the real- estate community, people with objectives. you want to minimize taxpayer risk. >> if you have the ability to

price risk appropriately, which we do not, because you do not know when that hundred-year issue is going to occur -- let me go to fannie mae and freddie mac. all of your options said that fannie and freddie end. >> that is right. >> right now, they are under conservatorship. what tactically occurs to cause panic and freddie to end -- what it technically occurs to cost fannie mae and freddie mac to end? >> without the legislation to allow us to want them down definitively, there is a substantial risk. the only option is that they be free created -- be recreated, recapitalized, and reprivatized.

if we do not legislate, they will be created in a different form. >> over what timeframes should the end -- they end? >> it depends on how successful we are in bringing private capital back again. >> this is a five-year to seven- year period of time. it could be longer or shorter. >> how do we benefit from -- there are a number of databases and other kinds of things that have value. there are also new are-legacy loans that have more value. how do we make sure the government benefits from that? >> there are a lot of very talented people with a lot of experience. there is a lot of intellectual property value in those systems. we have a variety of ways to make sure the government debt -- the government maximizes the benefit from that. that is a very important

question. >> i know my time is up. we talked about giving more time to people who do not give opening comments. mat asked one more question? on the debit issue -- we have had a number of regulators in on that there been amendment -- durbin amendment. it is such a narrow definition that it did not price the interchange appropriately. do you have any comment on that? >> i do not. you did not commit the authority under law to resolve -- did not give me the authority under law to resolve that. >> on the qualified residential mortgages, where this at 20%, is not something you support? >> i have not yet. i do believe that there is a very strong case, as we build

this new system, that we have a system in which most homeowners hold more equity against the value of their house. we should look at ways to achieve that in a sensible, careful, balanced way. that would be one way to do it. >> what is a sensible time frame for passing reform on housing? >> i think, as an objective, you should try to do it within two years. if not, banks and investors will have a hard time trying to figure out the economics. >> thank you. >> senator schumer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i did not make an opening statement either about fannie and freddie. there are people who try to lay the blame of the financial crisis at fannie and freddie. i think that is theological -- is ideological.

it is hard to lead the blue -- blame exclusively on fannie and freddie. first, housing bubble was international. there were troubles in spain, ireland, eastern europe, and elsewhere. the peak of the bubble was in 2004, 2005, 2006, when fannie and freddie were losing market share. there was a bubble and bust in commercial real estate as well as residential. there were no fannie and freddie loans in commercial. certainly, fannie and freddie need reform, but the idea that they are at the center of the crisis is ideologically-driven, as opposed to fact-based. i will leave it at that.

i want to ask some questions about covered bonds, which is something i care about. whatever we do with fannie and freddie, we need to get private capital back into housing finance sooner rather than later. we do not have a statutory framework that provide certainty regarding their treatment in the event of insolvency. there has been a bill introduced recently in the house that i am considering introducing in the senate. it is on covered bonds. secretary geithner, you mentioned, in your written testimony, your willingness to work with congress to explore creating a legislative framework for cover bonds. what do you think of the legislation that has been put in in the house? the fdic has argued that covered bonds could potentially put to the deposit insurance fund at some increased risk.

i cannot see how covered bonds are different than any other secured obligation. so, and finally, do covered bonds put the taxpayer at risk? secretary geithner, let me ask you first, then secretary donovan. >> we would support legislation that would help it is in the form of the federal home banking financial structure. is the equivalent. but the questions you raised about the fdic are legitimate concerns. be this to work, you'd putting the taxpayer, in a sense, behind private investors and that has its own consequences. that is something we can work for. it can play a greater role in our system. >> how are they different than any other secured obligation? >> it depends on how the law

defines it. >> define that. >> i do not think this is rocket science. >> that is why i want to be involved. it is not rocket science. >> adding to secretary geithner's point, it is important that we create the conditions for more innovation in the system. i think it is important to point out, as well, given that gse politicians obligation is the second-largest market in the world, there is no precedent for covered bonds operating in a market as broad and deep as the u.s. market. it is an important element, but i do not think, like some have suggested, that it is a silver bullet or a replacement for whenever system. >> i agree and i see secretary geithner agreeing. you think we ought to explorer. >> absolutely. >> final question for secretary

geithner on a topical issue about japan. they are our second largest creditor behind china. do you think there is any risk that in order to respond to the disaster and support their economy in the aftermath that the japanese will have to resort to sell some of their treasury holdings to raise cash darks do you see this having -- treasury holdings to raise cash? >> i do not. i should say, senator, that we extended we should all extend our thoughts and concerns to japan. this is an extraordinary challenge for them. this is a very high-savings rate country. they have the ability to deal with the reconstruction challenge they face ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> center moran.

-- senator marlin. >> thank you, secretaries, for joining us today. short overall reform, what steps could we take today short of the two-year peroid that would encourage-- period that would and courage moving back into the housing market? >> there are things that we can do to help gradually phase out the government's role. we have to get the of the rules in place for banks and investors in the securitization market said that there are better underwriting standards, clearer capital requirements, better disclosure requirements, better service from the things like that. those two conditions are very important for getting to private capital to come in. we think we can begin that right now. >> that would be administrative action compared to a congressional action? >> those reforms that we laid out coming to wind down the

government's role and put in place their roles of the game for the private markets, most of those things we can do within the authority to congress has given the executive branch. >> i would add that there are a number of letters we 0.2 in the report that we have begun to take action on as well. -- number of letters that we point to in the record. he urges markets over 50% and with the authority that this committee worked to give us, we announced an increase of their premiums 25 basis points in addition to help build our reserves. i also pointed to the loan limits. we advocate congress allowing to step back to the limits on october 1st. we would want to engage in further conversations about what

lower loan limits me want to pursue for fha as well as gse going forward. >> thank you both. hometown kansas bankers continue to talk to me about the regulatory environment in which they operate and particularly smaller community banks. i have had conversations with bankers here say they are no longer making real-estate loans as a result of the concern of the regulatory examination environment. i think it would be a very sad day for america in general when your home town banker is not willing capable of making a home loan. are both of you aware of the concerns and other steps being taken to either dissuade them from having the concern for the reasons that they do have the concern? >> we have the same thing from banks across the country. this is, in some sense, the

national -- the natural response of regulators who were -- how should this day -- to lose in the bone and they overcome react -- and they over correct. we are seeing a change in the basic environments. they are aware of the concern and they have issued guidance, clarifications for real-estate loans to try and respond to the concerns. i know that chairman bernanke, sheila bair, and others are looking for ways to make sure that the examiners bring the appropriate amount of balance. >> another point i would make, senator, is one of the consequences we have seen through this crisis has been an

increasing concentration of lending. today, the top five banks account for 16% of all originations. i have heard very directly from fha-approved lenders in many communities, particularly rural communities that fha party presents with the va and usda is absolutely critical to make sure that they continue to be a source of home loans in their communities. one of the reports we make is a risk in option one would mean that we have a less ability for community banks and others to be able to continue lending in those communities. >> let me ask a broad question. as you are aware, the topic of conversation, the point that the

congress and the administration is in deals with the fiscal house of the united states. in my view, we are bankrupt or near the bankrupt fiscally. i think there is a tendency to see this as a typical liberal- conservative, whenever the labels are, at a philosophical battle going on in washington, d.c. and in my view, there are consequences to every day standard of living interest rates. if we continue to have a goal in this country of having homeownership, i hope you would agree with me that there is a significant consequence to the failure of congress in addressing the fiscal issues we face today with rising interest rates. i would like your reaction to be able to tell americans that what we are discussing here, and the votes that occur have the direct consequences upon our ability to enjoy a higher standard of

living and homeownership. am i missing anything in the magnitude of what we face today? >> there is a bipartisan and herded them find a way to put in place ways to finance things better critical to grow as a country going forward. our growth prospects will be in jeopardy, short and long term, if we cannot find a way in a bipartisan basis to lock in reforms that will bring these down over time not only because of the risk of higher interest rates over the future, which would be bad for the economy in general, and not just my, ownership more expensive. >> within the direct area of housing finance, and corn steps have been taken by the conservatives of the gse's to

improve lending and allow them to make good on their commitments to repay the american taxpayer to the agreements they have with the treasury. we have taken a broad set of steps to improve our finances to where we're likely contribute to the taxpayer in the range of $10 billion this year because of the improvements we have made in rest -- risk-management. these are critical areas where we can get our own fiscal house in order irresponsibly managing to improve government and we have to improve the performance of government. >> senator hagan? [inaudible]

[microphone not on] >> i expect the guarantees provided by fannie mae and -- >> can you turn on your microphone? >> sorry about that. is it on now? thank you. i would expect us that the guarantees provided by fannie mae and freddie mac are wound down and that mortgages will be viewed as riskier for purposes of capital standards. but how would you expect mortgages and mortgage related securities to be viewed for risk

rating and capital standards under basel under the administration's reports? >> my only view is that the capital the require banks to hold against risks should be the same under all of those options. i would not alter them based on the option that we come to based on the simple proposition that would ever risks banks hold, we went to make sure they are required to vote more capital against them. the standards should apply regardless of the options that congress shoot -- chooses. >> with higher capital requirements, would you believe the comparative cost to consumers will be for a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage under these plans? >> it is important recognize that the cost of a mortgage will rise for the american people, modestly we believe, but reasonable. any person looking at the options would see that the cost for a 30-year fixed mortgage

rehire in option one -- would be higher and the option 1 and two than in option 3. >> in option one? >> highest in one, less 5 in two, less fight in three. -- less high in 2, less high in 3. >> the provisional the critical here as well. how we set those standards, as secretary geithner said, not changing the risk rating, but qrm will depend on those standards. as we released a role for comment, we should continue to have the discussion about how we set standards to ensure adequate capital but also not pricing that would put fixed-rate financing out of reach for more consumers. >> that is what i am concerned about. what with the impact on u.s. banks that hold -- securities

compared to banks abroad? what we -- would we be required to hold comparatively more capital darks >> under the framework of capital reforms we have supported, it would be a level playing field across global markets and institutions. the designs of these or the objectives is to make sure that banks in the united states are required to have the same level of risk as it would be banks in the united kingdom, canada, germany. that is for obvious reasons. you want a level playing field. that is a challenge to achieve in the practice, but it is very important that we try to do that. >> as we have been talking bob, there have been calls for down payment requirements as much as 20%. middle-class families in the u.s., i do not think able to always satisfy that high down to requirement. median single-family homes cost, on average, $170,000 in 2009.

median household income was approximately $53,000. it would seem that under circumstances if the family earned the median income, it would take them a great deal of time to say about $34,000 to put towards home. when you consider instances where the same family has, for instance, medical expenses, saving for college education, how do we help and ensure that families that did this middle- class definition and this profile could ultimately obtain a home? >> first of all, as a bedrock principle, this is one of the reasons that we focus on having fha continue to be a source of affordable, safe mortgages for low and moderate income borrowers. that is an important bad rock to ensure that it continues.

second, a clear commitment during a dedicated, transparent string of funding that will allow us to continue to support, for example, downpayment assistance for homeowners. it will allow those to be able to buy a home they can afford and remain a homeowner in a sustainable way. i do think that there are indications beyond those two principles that we lay out in any of the three options that we need to look at the differences between the various options, particularly around the availability and pricing, as secretary geithner said, of the 30-year mortgage, in those of an options. it would be different and there clearly would be less availability of a fixed-rate 30- year mortgage and higher pricing on that and the option one relative to option 3. >> i agree with what the secretary said and i want to underscore how important it is the point he made. it is not just the impact on the

homeowner, but we have a great tradition of thousands of small businesses starting because people were able to borrow against the value of their homes. we want to get the balance right. we do not know exactly where the right balances, but it is important to recognize that whatever we do, it is important that we get the incentive is better for people to hold more equity in their cross over time. not all americans, but you what the system to rely on a sticker equity cushion. i think that is very important. there are lots of ways, not only in the fha, to make sure that we give people some hope to buy their first time and be able to afford the first time. we can get a better bronzed and we have in our current system. >> than the financing structure and the actual costs and interest rates?

>> that is one reason why we have emphasized this. as we proceed, we proceed with a lot of care. it would be irresponsible for the government of the united states to embrace policies today that would raise the cost of mortgage financing significantly in and add to the still very substantial burdens and fragility of the current high financing. but we have to be careful we do not go too far in the other direction. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator belair. >> thank you both for being here. i want to go back to senator ram's concerns about the overall fiscal situation -- senator moran's concerns. do think congress and the president can put off some major approach to get us on a different long term fiscal path

without the risk of serious negative consequences in the meantime? >> it would be better for the country for congress and the administration to come together sooner and agree on a set of reforms we can lock in today that would restore gravity to a fiscal position. if you do it now with a multi- year set of reforms, that gives people more time to adjust. it gives investors more time to adjust, businesses more time, and you leave the world were confident that we will not put this off together. it is easier to solve if you start these things early. better to find a way to do it sensibly. >> just to add to that, senator, critical steps that we're taking, the freeze of the president has proposed for over five years, reductions we're proposing for 2012 in our own budget at hyde, a 3% reduction to 2010, they would all bring domestic discretionary spending to the lowest level since

president eisenhower. those are critical steps. it never recognized and secretary geithner has recognized that we need to move beyond just domestic discretionary spending. we clearly have proposed a budget that puts us on that course. >> that leads to my next question. i guess i just fundamentally disagree with that. my next question would you when with the president and administration lead on changing our fiscal course? i believe what has been announced so far has gone completely panned in terms of the markets which are ultimately the most important and most objective judge. that is going to impact with consequences we face down the line. >> senator, i do not agree with that. what the senate -- with the president proposes detailed changes to our resources and our

commitments that would reduce our deficit from 10% of gdp in to around 3% sennott g.d.p. which is primary ballots, the level at which you stop our overall debt burden from growing as a share of our economy. that is a necessary condition for fiscal sustainability. it does not solve the problem, but it is the minimum we need to do. when we frame this, we frame this as a first step as a downpayment. if congress were to legislate constraints on itself, it would be consistent with the deficit- reduction package it would be enormously helpful to sustaining living within our means. even if we achieve that, we will still have to figure out how to come together and make deeper reforms in health care spending over time. over the preceding decades, that is what will drive the long-term deficit. we have to find a way to get

from 10% of gdp to least primary balance in a three-five year time frame so that we can stop the overall debt burden from growing as a share of the economy. under our constitution, the president proposes that congress has to legislate in that context. i would be more encouraging and i think if you listen carefully to what is happening across the congress today that there is a lot of interest across the aisle, democrats and republicans to try and come together in a bipartisan framework to lock in long-term reform. >> i agree with the last statement and i encourage everyone including the administration to latch on and lead in that. i second main topic is about risk retention. there are proposals to exempt gse loans from risk exemption. do either of you support that? >> i do not think that there are

discussions about exemptions. the key question is if we are setting standards for risk retention, that should cover the market broadly. the question is how do we ensure, whether it is the gse's or other financial institutions that they are holding adequate capital. everything we have said in the discussion today about reform of would say we are very much in favor of holding at a capitol against their commitments. that is, i think, what you will see not only when draft rules get released but also in the further discussions that we have about the future of the gse's. >> our overall objective, and this has to be shared, is to have the private markets, banks,

and investors bear more of the risk in housing finance, not less. absolutely we're going to make sure as we design these draft regulations that we are meeting the basic objective. we do not want to work against that objective. we expect to go out with a direct role reasonably soon. we can adjust that if necessary to make sure it consists with that objective. >> under the framework you're describing, would gse loans in terms of down payments, risk retention, etc., be created like other loans darks >> it is not appropriate for either bus to comment on the details of the proposal yet because we want to make sure that the people responsible do that carefully and they will come out for public comment soon in draft form. our overall objective should be to make sure that we create a system in which private investors, private banks, private individuals are holding more of the risk in housing finance, not less relative to the government agencies.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you both for testifying and working on this very important challenge. i wanted to focus on option 3. i went to get a little bit better sense of some of the pieces. perhaps these have been laid out in detail, but at least in the bit of a sense of what you were thinking. in the terms of a piece of the guarantee fund being pulled off for the government's catastrophic the fund, first, with that portion that would go to the government's catastrophic guarantee, would that be done in an fdic-style where it could be changed from year to year as the size of the fund grew in the risks seemed higher or lower? >> that is something that could be designed in the details, but i think one of the principles

that we have as we lay out the options that would provide the ability to respond to market conditions, particularly as you enter a financial or housing crisis. there is a needed to ensure that pricing can be adjusted whether to grow reserves more rapidly or to ensure that there is adequate capital available, adequate liquidity during the crisis. some form of flexibility would be important. >> my impression is that the catastrophic guarantee fund is a last resort after private mortgage guarantee companies actually fail, if you will. would that kick in after the stockholders have lost their value? would it kick in after the bondholders have lost the value of their investment? >> one the primary areas week focused on in the report is to ensure that we're creating a

system where there is a real private capital at risk ahead of any guarantee. we are there to be that system. we would want to ensure that equity would be at risk and therefore would be wiped out, if you will, before there would be access to a guarantee. >> including bondholders as well as stock? >> it depends if you're talking about securities, then obviously the protection would be bondholders on security because their bondholders to capital that goes to that institution, then yes. >> i was speaking to the latter. in concerns about fannie and freddie as they became so large and systemically significant, would there be a limit on the size of the private mortgage guarantee companies' stocks -- companies? >> the most important to do

would be to regulate them for capital and that they are required to be subject to a set of comprehensive oversight capital requirements to do that. that would be necessary. the only way to limit the real risk of the system ultimately and the risk to the taxpayer is to make sure that if the government is exposed to any risk or loss that there's a lot of capital ahead of the government. >> the other important point here as well would be that independent of the size of the individual institutions, a fundamental premise of option three was at the foot for an overall of that guarantee be limited relative to the nationalization option or continuing the current place where we are where over 90 percent of new mortgages are guaranteed. it is not just the individual

size of institutions but the overall size of any guarantee being limited to ensure that the primary risk in the market is borne by the private sector. >> one of the things that we talked about under the volcker rule structure was the the companies that were private investment banks, as they became larger and more systemically significant that the regulators could raise the capital requirements so as to recognize the additional risk of a particular single house going down. could something like that be used in this incident to not necessarily completely put a limit on the size of the ofpany's but to kind encourage multiple smaller companies? >> at think it is very important generally to look at the system that we recognize there's a

level of concentration or consolidation that would be against our interests in this context. we want to create set of incentives in the system were we're preserving the strong role we play with small community banks and regional banks. we went to make sure we do not alter the way in which we work against the objective of a very diversified mix of small and large. in terms of capital requirements, i am very supportive of and it welcomed the recognition of trying to say that for the largest institutions for the country, that creativity -- that creates the greatest risk, that they be held to higher standards. that is the approach we have brought to these broad capital reforms around the world. the basic principle should not be that banks hold enough capital but can absorb a shot without turning to the taxpayer, but for large institutions who

loses stakes to cause a broader damage to the innocent or more prudent. you to make sure that are held to higher standards, a welcome the basic principle. >> and the description of option 3, the disk -- the government would set standards for mortgages guaranteed by the private guarantee companies. with the -- would those be different than qrm standards? >> i hope not. we would want a more conservative set of standards for these things. you would want to try to improve the odds you have where you have one differentiating, but that depends on how the options are designed. >> one of the clear problems that led us into this crisis in the first place was the patchwork of various standards of, or lack of standards, that apply across different types of

mortgages. when the important elements of qrm is that it will level the playing field. >> center kirk? -- senator kirk? "to talk about increased risk retained by the private sector. one of the key problems for the american people to best understand this is the movie "it's a wonderful life." they attained mortgages and expect to be repaid. i think it was long beach savings which pioneered becoming just a loan origination house and they never expected to be repaid. they just skimmed the percentage and offloaded loans on the governments of the government actually was the problem. it turned banks and savings and loans into loan origination

houses that never expected to be repaid in there for quality was not retained. what if we look get a role other than option 1 which required the originating bank to on the bottom 10 out of every 100 loans it made? if the government found that the bottom 10 nonperforming that you have to own them. the garbage passed on to the government would be recaptured by the loan and there for sinking the bank that originated terrible paper. >> he had the problem exactly right and that may be one way to do it. for this to work, you have to do two things -- or maybe more than two things. again have to make sure that people who originated are required to be exposed to some of the risk in that judgment. you also have to require that they hold capital against the

rest because, as you said, we the people logic to originate these things and seldom with legal liability, but if they did not have capital, the people who bought them have no recourse against them. >> this goes back to the discussion we just had, but by the nature of the design that we discussed for option 3, they would be at risk and not just for the 10 worst mortgages but all 100 in the pool. to the extent that the capital they are holding as well as the equity, assets, whenever it held that institution. we fundamentally agree with the nature of your comments. >> a totally separate subject because this is a hot issue. we now see japanese equities have fallen 70%.

chinese equities fallen 1.4, tie 1, -- a time-honored, australia. do you see a systemic risk forming here? housing, in general, will always rise with the fundamental assumption that greeted the systemic risk in our system. another problem may be that asia is strong and therefore the assumption is incorrect. i would guess the you could probably give me a better idea. homes are probably 1%-3% held in asian equities which are now fallen. can you describe a few seem a ball in the systemic risk in asian equities? >> i would focus on the basic humanitarian restriction challenge in repairing the damage caused by the catastrophe. that is something that japan,

with assistance from the world community, can achieve. that is a challenge in this world economy. you see much more confidence, and i think it is justified come here and around the world in the resistance -- the resilience of what is under way. we want to make sure we do everything we can to not jeopardize that, but that should be our focus and attention. >> i am concerned because we see toshiba and toyota stopping production. the looks like we have a systemic shortage of power in japan. it will cripple a large publicly traded companies in being able to maintain production. >> there are a lot of things to be concerned about in the world and it is very important that we watch carefully. it is very hard to judge what

will be the magnitude of the short-term cost of production and out but there. our focus and attention should be on the reconstruction challenge. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to go all the way back to the very beginning about taking the politics out of this. one of the things that worries me in reading the three options is that even though we will not make an explicit guarantee, we will do everything we can to mitigate the private actors from believing that the government will show up and rescue. there is a nagging concern that they will always believe that we

will because of the sheer scale of housing, the importance of it to our economy. i wonder if you can talk a little bit more about whether you see this as a risk and what we could do to try to mitigated. >> i do not think it is beyond our capacity in the mitigating that risk. what we provide would be explicit, carefully qualified and cover any cost to the taxpayer. even if we achieve that, would we still have an alternate risk that banks operate with the hope and expectation that the government would step in as they have in the past. that is an important concern.

the only way that we credibly now to reduce that risk is to make sure we deliver the reforms we put in place last year. they require banks to hold much more capital and also entities that all -- operate as banks to operate against losses so that the government cannot step in to save them from their mistakes. the only thing the government can do to step in to dismember them safely with less risk of collateral damage. along with improving the incentives of the mortgage market so that day have more equity in their homes, we can make a substantial difference in creating a system less vulnerable to the moral hazard risk that purveys are well off in other systems. >> let me go back to the premise of your question.

part of this debate is to look at other countries around the world that have different finance systems and to save that they did not have mechanisms that protect against crises that we do. if you look closely at those systems, there are, almost in every case, there is a recognition that in the midst of a major financial crisis, the impact on housing, labour mobility, are so deep that there is a system, explicit or not, that will step in whether they are banking guarantees or other forms that exist in the broad system in the recognition that there needs to be a system that exists. we tried to be very explicit about that in the report and lay

out options. whether it is fha or fha with another form of a backstop in crisis in the options two and three recognize that we will need to step in. if you look at marc sandy -- nalysis, its recent al could have been worse. designing that in the most transparent way possible to minimize chances of mispricing the guarantee or having moral hazards are minimized. >> some wanted to talk about the difference between fha, fanny, and freddie. in the interest of time, i will skip that because i do not to

get in trouble with the chairman and i will ask you another question. fannie mae and freddie mac were allowed to behave like government-backed hedge funds managing large investment portfolios for the profit of their shareholders with the risks ultimately falling largely on taxpayers. if we create something like the third option, should deprive its assessors to fannie and freddie be allowed to maintain investment portfolios? or with certain restrictions on investments? >> there is no question that a portfolio activities should be dramatically different from what was there before. i think there is some minimal function that, for example, if you are talking about multifamily housing in rural communities or underserved communities where there may be some need to accumulate loans for sure. of time prior to securitization

that there are some relatively small activities to consider. fundamentally, and the lack of restriction were fundamental problems. insuring that in the guaranteed did not backstop those portfolios are critical. >> thank you for your testimony. we will have a second round. very brief questioning. the administration cautions against a hasty transition from fannie mae and freddie mac last week, we heard from the realtors and homebuilders then increasing

these these discourages potential home buyers. by increasing these these, are removing away from the private market and toward fha? i went to akko secretary geithner's comments earlier under any of the options -- >> i want to echo secretary geithner is comments. if you look at it the system that we have, if there is no question that we underpriced risk and took on risk at the interest rates we provided that we were not prepared for. that is one recognition we have to make going forward. i also think it is important and

as we take steps with hgse's that we take prudent steps to make sure that we are not expanding risks for fha and increasing the portfolio beyond its footprint. the recent announcement of a 25 basis point increase in premiums will help to do that and i think sets the stage to begin the return. i do think we are taking steps to recognize that in fha. one important point there would make is that fha guarantees are 100%. we take that risk very seriously and we have to ensure a smooth look at fannie mae and freddie mac that we are looking at options like risk sharing or other legislative changes to fha that would insure fha is better

prepared. >> would this be more likely in this report than others? >> i do think that if fha is the sole guarantor with the va playing a much smaller role but for those three entities the government is the sole guarantor particularly in the wake of a crisis that i think that there is certainly a risk that we take on a much larger footprint, if you will, than what would happen under options two or three. clearly that is something as we consider the various options that we need to be aware of. to work collaborative live with the committee to make sure that we continue to make sure for fha to take on a larger footprint.

there are many issues, systems, issues around procurement, making sure we can operate efficiently in a crisis. those on to be a central part of what we're looking at as we consider the reform of gse's. >> senator shelby? >> secretary donovan, i am quoting your words. "the administration is fully committed to exploring other measures to make sure the secondary market participants are providing the capital to all communities." then secretary geithner said, "government-supported incentives for housing distorted the market." on one hand you say the administration is fully committed to exploring government's incentives.

what are some of the ways that the administration is considering meeting these contradictory goals? are you considering government mandated lending quotas, and how do you achieve without facilitating lending decisions? >> senator, i believe we have talked about the risks of the political is asian of many things. >> there are big -- of the politicalization of these issues. i would go back to what you said earlier in the meeting. it could be a big tool in ensuring these markets work effectively. we have seen transparency through the home mortgage

transparency active. we have seen that transparency be a powerful force to ensure that where you have homeowners that can be successful homeowners and have the capacity to take on loans that credit is provided in those communities. there is a lot me can do as well as make sure we do not have an unlevel playing field between primary and secondary market doctors. >> the reform plan is designed to "target the government some vital support for affordable housing in a more effective manner. numerous studies including those conducted by the congressional budget office and the federal reserve had concluded that the

government's implicit guarantee of fannie and freddie securities yielded a small benefit to borrowers. most of the benefit went to fannie and freddie shareholders and executives. do you agree with the results of those studies? >> i do. >> ok. so, has the value of government guarantees for mortgage-backed securities been overstated by some in trying to push, ownership? >> in the context of fannie and freddie and the support the government provided, you are out right to say that most of the benefits of the guarantees did not go to the purported beneficiaries. that would be something you want to make sure your avoided in the future if you were going to preserve any role for guaranteed. there are ways to do that, senator, not beyond our capacity to get right.

>> i hope you can. if you are socializing the risk and privatizing the profits to the shareholders, we have a bad situation here. >> we would not support, even if we were applying to, the situation from a guaranteed designed to make sure that homeowners have access to financing and that we are able to withstand shocks like this with less collateral damage. >> would be an obvious position not to regulate another fannie and freddie mac? >> absolutely. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you again to secretary geithner and secretary donovan for being here today. it is essential that we can work on a stable housing market for american families.

the administration is a good standing -- starting point for a discussion on how to do this. i look forward to continuing the discussions as we further explore the options presented today. this hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> we will take a back to the house in 10 minutes when they return to business. they will take up the sixth temporary spending bill. and i look at the u.s. capitol with the flag at half mast in the capital and across washington today and the honor of frank buckle. he will be laid to rest later today. a live look at arlington national cemetery memorial chapel. he is the last american veteran of world war ii lying in honor at arlington until about 2:00 p.m. eastern where the grave site burial is set for 4:00 p.m.

eastern and he will be laid to rest in arlington section 34, the final resting place for general john pershing who led the expeditionary forces in world war i. this is a live view from arlington national cemetery.

>> c-span has covered a lot of memorial and a veteran's days. we rarely get this view and send the memorial amphitheater capital at arlington national cemetery. frank buckles died at 110 and is the last world war i american veteran. the house is coming in momentarily at noon eastern.

>> frank buckles that the age of 110 and is the final american veteran of world war i. the viewing continues until 2:00 p.m. at arlington national cemetery. the barrie -- burial is later. flags are flying at half staff not only in the washington but across the country today in honor of frank buckles. the u.s. house is coming back in just a moment and they will take up the sixth temporary spending bill this year. this will fund the government for april 8th and cut $6 billion from current levels. the last temporary spending bill, as you may recall, runs out this friday. action today in the house. live coverage begins here on c- span. the speaker: the house will be

in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father coughlin. chaplain coughlin: lord god, our hope and our salvation, 40 years is hardly a lifetime anymore, yet your people wandered in the desert until a whole generation passed. longing for your promises to be fulfilled. now, 40 days seems far longer than a month's time, yet both moses and jesus withdrew from the people just that long to seek your face on the holy mountain. be with this nation and the members of this house as long as it takes, lord. allow your people to repent and reflect on old patterns that have brought about present crisis. grant them your power to seek

new patterns of behavior so free people will embrace laws with accountability and security with spontaneously give rise to self-discipline. lord, heal our wounded nature and bring us to the fullness of life you have promised. both now and forever. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: pursuant to clause 1, rule 1 i dooned ma -- demand a vote on agreeing to the spomplee of the journal. the speaker: so many as are in favor say aye. he those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. mr. poe: mr. speaker, i object

to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make a point of order a quorum is not present. the speaker: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from california, mr. baca. mr. baca: will members stand. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to 15 one-minute requests on each side. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, they cry peace, peace, peace, in the daylight, when darkness of the light comes they murder the innocent. such was the case over the weekend when suspected

palestinian radicals killed five israeli members of a family living in the west bank. the asatins slithered into the home and murdered and butchered three of their children, ages 11, 4, and three months. the act of terror against of jews of israel. they appear to be political murder by radicals. baby killers of any religion are or political belief are the lowest forms of human existence. israel has the absolute right to exist. those that have the blood of babies on their hands refuse to let israel exist. the murder of the fogel family is yet another example that israel cannot have peace as long as their neighbors hypocritically peach peace in the daytime and practice murder in the nighttime. that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. baca: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

mr. back yo: mr. speaker, -- mr. baca: mr. speaker, we have just seen 12 straight months of private sector jobs growth. and there are two years lower in unemployment rate. now is the time for us to give our economy another push forward with a smart budget, i state with a smart budget that invests in critical needs and lowers the deficit with intelligent spending cuts. but instead what are we giving the american people? more uncertainty with another short-term extension. this short-term continuing resolution must stop. the american people need jobs. not misguided plans that undermine the future of our nation. unfortunately, the republican -passed budget would give pink slips to 7,000 american workers. and now with the continued assault on mortgage relief programs, the republicans are already ready to start handing out foreclosure notices, too.

let's stop this madness. let's work together on a budget plan that creates jobs -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. baca: and keeps our families in their homes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. pence: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. pence: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, with a $14 trillion national debt, a $1.65 trillion deficit this year alone, our federal government is facing a fiscal crisis of unprecedented proportions. with the passage of h.r. 1, house republicans took an important first step toward turning our national government back in the direction of fiscal discipline. defunding obamacare and even restoring the sanctity of life to the septre of the federal budget. but it was rejected by liberals in the senate. in fact, last week the majority leader called the republican budget cuts, mean-spirited, reckless, and irresponsible. even defending federal funding

for a cowboy poetry festival. seriously. is it reckless and irsmons to ask for $61 billion in cuts when the national debt is 230 times that size? the truth is they don't get it. i think it's time to take a stand for taxpayers and for future generations. i will not vote for the short-term continuing resolution that is coming to the floor of the house today to make that statement. things don't change in washington until they have to. it's time to pick a fight. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? without objection, so ordered, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. sirse -- mr. sires: mr. speaker, as we continue to make our way through the budget process, we must ensure that all funding reductions we make are done in a responsible manner. while i strongly agree we need to get our deficit under control, we cannot do it in a way that undermines public safety and job creation.

for example, the republican long-term c.r. will cut $88 million in funding from the food safety and inspection service. this little known cut will force food safety inspectors off the job over 30 days, resulting in shutdowns of plants across this nation. the usda estimated that such cuts will result in $11 billion loss in productivity. additionally meat and poultry production is supposed to grow over the next year. if we decrease funding for food safety, there will be fewer insmectors to examine our food and -- inspectors to examine our food and make sure it's acceptable for consumption. mr. speaker, this is one example how we need to dissect each cut and the impact it will have in the real world. i hope this chamber can come together, make sensible decision when is it comes to reducing our deficit. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one

minute. >> since the time president obama took office in 2009, the price of gasoline has more than doubled from $1.53 a gallon to $3.52 cents. america has become more dependent on foreign oil, undermining our national security while forcing hardworking americans to endure budget busting gasoline prices. when you fill up your car it's not the oil companies you should blame, it's the white house. mr. farenthold: offshore drilling in the gulf of mexico is shut down. in the attempt to end tax incentives for oil exploration are factors. the culture of no from the executive branch is killing us. add to that the lack of any action in light of the deteriorating situation in the middle east, libya in particular, and we have a fail yaur of letteredship at the top of this country. energy is key to our economy. scores of jobs rely on it. $3.50 gasoline is unacceptable. i call on the president to act

today. call off the e.p.a. issue those leases and permits in the gulf. open america's land for drilling. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from vermont rise? without objection, so ordered, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. welch: thank you. to my republican colleagues when you say that we have a fiscal house to get in order, you're right. but when your plan is to focus 100% of your firepower on 12% of the budget, i say you are designing a plan that will fail. why is it that we have added $700 billion to the deficit by extending tax cuts for the top 2%? why is it that we'll cut low-income heating assistance by $2.5 billion and continue $55 billion in tax breaks for oil companies that are selling oil at $100 a barrel? they made $1 drill in the past -- trillion in the past 10 years. why is it we are having a threat by the republican majority saying no on extending

the debt limit and have americans default on paying its bills for past obligations incurred under republican and democratic administrations and play with fire? with the reputation of the american people despite the clear damage that will do to the economy rather than acknowledge that we have an obligation to meet our obligation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii rise? without objection, so ordered, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. hanabusa: mr. speaker, the people of america are asking us, what are we doing? we are going to vote today on another continuing resolution that extends for another couple of weeks, and they are saying, what's the matter with all of you? why can't you just get it done? they are absolutely right. mr. speaker, the attitude of so be it cannot continue. yes, we all understand that there is a deficit. we all want to work to stop

that. but we also realize that you just simply can't cut. you have to do it smart. you've got to do smart cuts so it doesn't hurt what we are all striving for which is the creation of jobs. people want jobs. and they want us to get this house in order. you know, if you don't want to listen to us, mr. speaker, think about the military. both sides of the aisle have always looked upon the military something we share in common. and they are saying, a continuing resolution does not work. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. perlmutter: permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. perlmutter: i had an opportunity to listen to my two republican friends on the other side of the aisle, i need to remind them when you take a voluntary pay cut and subsidize and give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires and prosecute a couple wars to the tune of $1 trillion that you don't pay for, then you let

wall street run amuck without any police or wall street, and you have a crash, you are going to have a major debt. so now they are complaining about a debt that they were instrumental in creating. all right. we got to pay it, but you got to get people back to work. the best way to reduce the deficit is to have people working. when you make the cut, president obama has reduced what we are spending in iraq by $100 billion. that's real money. can't just focus on education. you can't just focus on energy efficiency. you got to focus on tax cuts for oil companies, tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. it's both sides of the ledger. it takes all of us working together to get this under control. we democrats intend to do that. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. johnson: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, soaring gas prices are impacting americans all

over the country. with gas costing nearly $4 a gallon, drivers are forced to rethink how they get around. with families and businesses tightening their budgets, rising gas prices are exactly what they don't need, exactly when they don't need it. that's why i'm calling on the i.r.s. to increase the gas mileage deduction like it did in 2005 and 2008 to ease the pain at the pump for taxpayers. taxpayers want, need, and deserve this fair and simple and commonsense solution for us to tap america's homegrown energy resources right here, right now. call the white house, the number's 202-456-1414. tell them to get with it. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? without objection, so ordered. mr. himes: i rise today with a sad duty to honor the life and service of private first class david richard fahey, jr., killed in the service of our nation. he was born only 23 years ago in connecticut on february 28 his life was taken from us in kandahar province, afghanistan. i never had the honor of meeting david, but i read the remembrances of his family and friends as they mourn his passing and celebrate his life. i learn he was a young man blessed with a singular sense of humor. he was always ready to cheer up others. and i learned he was a man of faith who would spend hours accompanying friends in need. david fahey was a man who put the need of others first. it's no surprise he chose to serve his country as a soldier and m.p. . today you can on behalf of the people -- today, on behalf of

the people of connecticut, i offer our perpetual gratitude for his legacy of service and commitment to the defense of all that we cherish. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida rise? without objection, the gentlewoman from florida is recognized for one minute. ms. wilson: mr. speaker, i rise with my colleagues to talk about jobs. in order to reduce the deficit in our nation, everyone in the nation must work. but how can you work when you don't have a job? my constituents want to work. they are still hurting. maybe we can't feel the hurt because we have a job. i'm still waiting to hear republicans' plan for jobs. when will we help the people become whole again? they are losing their homes. families are homeless, not knowing what to do next. their unemployment benefits have expired and still they can't

find work. right now over 50% of homeowners in the miami housing market either owe more on their mortgage than their home is worth or within 5% of that mark. instead of figuring out ways to help, tomorrow congress will be voting on whether or not to end programs that offer hope to distressed homeowners. we talk about a deficit that took eight years to create during the bush administration. it took us more than two years -- it will take us more than two years to peel it away. that is eight years of bad judgment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman yields back. ms. wilson: jobs, jobs, jobs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman will suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 167 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 17. house resolution 167.

resolved, that upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the joint resolution, house joint resolution 48, making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2011, and for other purposes. all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. the joint resolution shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final passage without intervening motion except, one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations, and, two, one motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one hour. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, pending such time i yield myself such time as i may consume.

all time is yielded for purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i also ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, house resolution 167 provides a closed rule for h.j.res. 48. keeping in lines of the action of the minority party's c.r. last year, this provides one hour of dewait and a motion to recommit. we're here again today dealing with a continuing resolution, mr. speaker, because h.r. 1 sits idly on the senate side. as you recall, h.r. 1 has been the singley most debated piece of legislation that we have had in this body this year. in fact, we considered more amendments on that strength bill in february than all of the previous spending bills in the last two congresses combined. and yet even as the house has worked its will, even as i think we on both sides of the aisle identify that as one of the

finest hours of this body, it sits in the senate unused, unexamined, undebated. mr. speaker, we're in the middle of debate on spending. it's not that we tax too little in this country. we spend too much. we're operating with $1.4 trillion annual deficits, $1.6 trillion. they're saying next year it could be $1.7 trillion. strength that we do -- strength that we do with -- spending that we do with money we don't have. we need to have this debate of how do we move beyond what was last year's business and get on to what's this year's business. these things that we're working on, this three-week c.r., mr. speaker, this is not the real business. the real business is yet to come. i sit on the budget committee. if you look at the tough decisions coming down the pipe from the budget committee. look what it will take to get this budget back in balanced. look at what it will take to enstore integrity to our fiscal system.

these are the real issues we have to discuss but we can't discuss them, mr. speaker, because we are still working on last year's business. now, i think we're frustrated on both sides of the aisle that we are working on last year's business and candidly, it may come as a surprise to you, mr. speaker, but i don't blame a sole on the other side. the other side of this body has been our partner in moving h.r. 1 to the senate. they've been our partner in making the tough decisions that have to be had and we had republican amendments that succeeded and republican amendments that failed. this body worked its will. but the senate has yet to take up the legislation, has yet to take up legislation passed in february has yet to be taken up here as we sit here in the middle of march. now, i don't know how to have a negotiation. i am proud of the way in which we did it, but now we wait on the senate to come to the table and lay down its vision for how

we fund this government through september of this year. we continue to wait and hopefully these three weeks, mr. speaker, will provide the time needed for the senate to gear up and get going because i'll say it over and over and over again food, this is last year's business. and it is distracting us from the important business that needs to happen. i'll tell you this, this c.r. for three weeks isn't what i would have liked to have seen. what i'd like to have seen is h.r. 1 come back to this floor and see h.r. 1 go to the president's desk. what i'd like to see is the difficult, difficult discussions that we had on this floor be translated into the law of the land as it sits on the president's desk and receives his signature. but we cannot move to that point until the senate acts. so i rise today, mr. speaker, to support this rule that will bring to the floor a continuing resolution, that will give the senate three more weeks to get its house in order to do the business that the american people sent the senate here to

do, to join us in doing the good work we have done and to move a bill to the president's desk so that we can get on to the rest of the business that the country's laid before us. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i want -- i rise to claim my time. i want to thank the gentleman from georgia for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, here we go again, considering yet another short-term continuing resolution. the last c.r. was for two weeks. this is a three-week bill, so i guess the good news is we're heading in the right direction. but that's about the only good news, mr. speaker. this is no way to run a budget process. it is no way to run a government. it's like water torture. drip, drip, drip. how are governors and mayors and city councils suppose to plan if we keep passing the short-term

bills? how are the financial markets supposed to have any certainty if we pass bills that only goes for two weeks or three weeks? we all know what needs to happen, democrats and republicans in the house, the senate and the white house need to get together and figure out a sensible, bipartisan solution to this year's budget. and while it may, you know, be convenient to blame the senate, i should remind my colleagues here that the majority leader of the senate tried to bring up a bill but the republicans voted to not allow the bill to be considered. so it's not like there aren't alternatives out there. the time for rhetoric, mr. speaker, is past. the time for press releases and posturing is over. the time for finger-pointing must end because despite what some on the other side of the aisle seem to believe, a government shutdown is not in our nation's best interest. i look at today's "politico," and one of the leading

republican spokesman, representative steve king, is quoted extensively in an article saying defunding is worth a shutdown. i think the last thing the american people want is for us to shut down the government because -- because, mr. speaker, i suppose we should also be grateful that the bill before us today does not include some of the policy changes that were in h.r. 1, such as blocking money for health care reform and planned parenthood, which they voted to eliminate in h.r. 1. h.r. 1, mr. speaker, took a meat ax to border security, to food safety, low-income heating assistance, medical research and i can go on and on and on. and thankfully, thankfully, the senate rejected that approach last week. but make no mistake, h.r. 1 is what my republican colleagues not only want but are demanding. their ideological and rigid, and

rigid loyalty to h.r. 1 is what is holding up these negotiations. and the cuts in h.r. 1, mr. speaker, are not only egregious but they are reckless and they are damaging. according to former john mccain economic advisor, mark zandi, the bill had the potential to lead to 700,000 lost jobs, exactly the wrong prescription for our recovering economy. and speaking of jobs, mr. speaker, where are the republicans' jobs bills? where is the legislation to encourage investment in new technologies and infrastructure and education and in medical research? it's been 11 weeks and we have seen nothing, not a thing from the other side of the aisle on jobs. let me remind my colleagues, that if you truly want to achieve deficit reduction, focus on job creation, put people back to work. we can grow out of this deficit that we have. mr. speaker, we can and must do better and i urge my colleagues to oppose this closed rule. i remind my colleagues that we

have yet to truly have an open rule in this house. oppose the closed rule and oppose the underlying legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. wood y'all: mr. speaker, i -- mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds. i've been on the job 65 days. the single most open process that this house has seen in four years and i'm proud of that. i'm proud of what we did together. are there other alternatives out there to h.r. 1? i don't know, mr. speaker, i haven't seen one back from the senate. are they passing things? no, they're not. and i don't know where we go to move forward with that. a the gentleman who might, mr. speaker, is my friend from the great state of georgia, and i yield to mr. scott two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. and to my colleague from georgia, i want to thank you for your lead on this and for

sharing your time with me. members in november wanted us to get our fiscal house in order. in fact, our very livelihood as americans depend on it. now, americans understand and we as republicans understand that we cannot eliminate this deficit with one piece of legislation, but they do expect congress to work continuously to reduce spending, excessive spending in all areas of the government. mr. speaker, last week it was announced that february's deficit reached a record $223 billion. the house's continuing resolution simply cuts $100 billion. approximately two weeks' worth of february's deficit and yet the democrats say it's reckless cuts. two weeks of february's deficit that we attempted to reduce. today, i ask my colleagues to join me in voting for this continuing resolution which will once again reduce the federal budget deficit. this time by $6 billion.

no, it's not enough, but it is a step in the right direction. house republicans recognize that we need to do more to reduce the deficit. we also know that the country expects the president and senator reid to accept their responsibility for this fiscal reality that they have helped create and to work with the house, the house as a whole to reduce this deficit. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: yeah, mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, i think all of us are dedicated to eliminating excessive spending wherever it may exists. the problem with h.r. 1 and the republican approach is that all the tough choices and all the burden falls on the middle class and on the poor in this country. the fact is that donald trump got his tax cut. we didn't touch that. big oil companies continue to get taxpayer subsidies. they wrote h.r. 1 in such a way so we couldn't get at those

business. big ag business continue to get their subsidies and i go on and on and on. no big contracts in the defense department. you know, all those special interests were protected but we cut liheap. they cut liheap for our -- to help people heat their homes in this winter. they go after the national institutes of health. you want to find a way to make medicaid solvent? find a cure to alzheimer's disease. you don't find a cure by cutting moneys to the national institutes of health. at this time, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to follow-up on what my friend from massachusetts said when he was talking about the cuts in h.r. 1 to research and development. we find in new jersey, which is the third largest state in the country for health care research and development, that every time the federal government spends $1, it creates five, six, or seven

private sector jobs. that's the problem here republicans are not focusing on the issue which is job creation. the problem with their continuing ruse, the long-term one that they adopted and they say we should just pass in the senate and send to the president, is it actually destroys jobs. if you listen to the things that are actually being cut, these are the things that deal with investments in the future. r. and d, research and development -- r&d, research and development, commerce that allows us to fix our roads and provide for mass transit and fix our ports, the gentleman from massachusetts mentioned peter king from new york who actually criticized h.r. 1 because he says it really hurts port security. how are we going to trade, how are we going to export products if we don't deepen our ports? if we don't provide for safe ports? the same thing is true with education. h.r. 1 basically cuts back on education on pell grants for students to go to college. only investments that make sense because they actually

create jobs are going to be eliminated with h.r. 1 with this republican resolution. it is extremely shortsighted. i mean i feel like i was here two weeks ago with the same people. my colleague from georgia on the republican side. we just can't continue to go two weeks, three weeks at a time. you're actually going to go out of session and have a vacation or break next week. if you really are serious about this, because we know that the senate basically couldn't get closure on h.r. 1 -- cloture on h.r. 1, why not spend next week trying to work out something responsibly with the senate so we can get the government going? i mean that's what we need to do. we need a consensus. you have one point of view on the republican side. the democrats have another point of view. we have a democratic president. we are never going to get through this budget year unless we actually sit down and have some consensus and some compromise. what i hear my colleague from georgia saying is take it or leave it.

we voted on h.r. 1. that's our republican bill. it has all the cuts. the democrats don't like it because we believe it's going to kill jobs. you say take it or leave it. it can't operate that way. i don't believe that our constituents in november expected us to just come down here and say, take it or leave it. they want us to go to work. they don't want us to take next week off. they want us to create jobs. right now the uncertainty with these two or three week short-term spending bills is creating a lot of havoc. i think it will create havoc on the financial markets. it's already creating havoc within the federal agencies because they don't know where they are going to be operating from one week to the next. it's not good for the country. it's not good for the economy. we may disagree but need to work together. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: i yield myself 30 seconds to stay to the gentleman from new jersey, i just couldn't agree with him more. the house spoke.

it wasn't republicans that spoke. it wasn't democrats that spoke. the house spoke with h.r. 1. we need to get to the negotiating table. i don't know when the senate's going to act. i hope the senate acts today. i'll stay here just as long as it takes to work through those things with the senate, but we can't do it alone as much as we'd like to. as much as we'd like to do it alone we can't, we are being held at bay by a senate that refuses to move something forward. i think all -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. woodall: would be useful to the senate side. with that, mr. speaker, i'm tremendously proud to yield two minutes to my good friend and great american patriot, the gentleman from iowa, mr. steve king. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from georgia. i tend to agree with all the republicans from georgia. i'm here on the floor to speak to this issue of what frames this rule and continuing resolution that flows behind it, mr. speaker. i'd remind the american people, i'm here to talk about obamacare. about cutting off the funding to obamacare and keeping our

pledge. we have 87 new freshmen republicans here in the house of representatives. i believe all of them ran on the repeal of obamacare. i know all of them voted to repeal obamacare. i know this house has the authority to cut off the funding to obamacare. we passed h.r. 2, the repeal. every senate republican voted to repeal obamacare. and h.r. 1 was the will of the house. we stood here an we debated over 90 hours. and the components of that that affect the policy of this country within the rule of h.r. 1 are not part of the negotiations of this kr. not the two week -- c.r., not the two week or the three week that's the subject of this rule we are debating here, mr. speaker. i lament we don't have the will of the house reflected in this c.r. it is trying the patience of the republicans in this house, a growing number of the senate they are willing to vote for another temporary spending measure to bridge it over until we get some kind of resolution.

but the house can draw the line. there's not a dime that can be spent by this federal government without the approval of the house. and my position that was reflected by the gentleman from massachusetts says this, i'm willing to face the president because if we are not willing to face the president, he will get exactly everything he's willing to fight for. that means we have to confront the idea of the president eventually shutting the government down or give him what he wants. it's more important we stand on the constitution and fiscal responsibility than it is to hand over to the president of the united states who has the audacity to send us a budget with a $1.65 trillion devers and that level of irresponsibility to just capitulate to his demand. we must shut off the funding to obamacare. i'm ready to do that. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself such time as i consume. there you have it. that's the difference between

democrats and republicans in terms of how we approach this issue. they want to shut the government down. what happens to social security checks? veterans benefits, and national parks? i go on and on and on. there are consequences to being so rigid. i'm going to say to my colleague from georgia, he said h.r. 1 was not the will of the republicans. the house vote. the house didn't speak. three democrats voted for h.r. 1. we have 192 democrats in the house. it was not the house speaking. it was the republicans wanted. so h.r. 1 is wholly owned by my friends on the republican side. i again will say that that bill represents some of the most reckless and heartless cuts that i have seen since i have come to congress. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time.

the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds to say reckless and heartless is exactly the debate that we are going to have to have. is it reckless to pass on $14 trillion in debts to our children with no end in sight? i would say to you that it is. is it heartless to saddle our children with that burden that's going to drain their economy dry? i would say to you that it is. is it reckless to treat the world credit market as if they will ever feed our appetite? i say to you that it is. we have to take these steps today. mr. speaker, with that i yield two minutes to my good friend, colleague on the rules committee, the gentleman from florida, mr. new gent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. new gent: i appreciate, mr. speaker, i appreciate that from my good friend from georgia. today i rise in support of house res. 167 and the underlying resolution 48. this resolution provides us with the rule that we consider a bill that continues to fund

the federal government for the next three weeks. i want to thank the appropriations committee for the hard work they have done and their ability to compromise. i hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle can follow their example. although i support this continuing resolution, and i hope my colleagues will support it as well, i don't want to keep coming back to this issue every two or three weeks. funding the government a few weeks at a time is unacceptable. although my fellow fresh m.e.p. and i have been here for over two months now, we are still cleaning up the mess that was left behind by the previous congress. as i see it kicking the can down the road, refusing to make hard decisions as relates to spending. now it's up to us to say, enough's enough, mr. speaker. with the out-of-control spending. the house has been at the table

for two months. we are offering solutions. the senate and the president have been sitting on the sidelines offering none. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself such time as i might consume. what is reckless and heartless about h.r. 1 is that it atiments 20 balance the -- atelts to balance the budget on the most vulnerable in our country, making deep cuts in the low-income energy fuel assistance program, help keep people warm in wintertime, cutting w.i.c., to help keep pregnant women healthy so they deliver healthy babies, which by the way in the long run saves us money. what is heartless and reckless is the cuts in nutrition programs in the national institutes of health. medical research, trying to find cures to diabetes and alzheimer's and cancer.

and what's protected are taxpayer subsidies for oil companies. what's protected is donald trump's tax cut. our subsidies to big agribusinesses, and what's not even talked about is the fact we are fighting two wars and we are not paying for it. everybody wants to go to war in this chamber but no one wants to pay for it. it's wrong and unconscionable. that's adding considerably to our deficit. and add -- also adding to our deficit a tax cut that's not paid for. what's heartless about h.r. 1 is it goes after people who need government the most and leaves people who don't need government alone. with that, mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: i thank the speaker. i thank my friend from massachusetts for yielding. and our friend from georgia for

managing the debate. there are 15 million unemployed americans as we meet this afternoon, and this is the 11th consecutive week that the majority has not brought to the floor a bill for us to work together to create an environment where small businesses and entrepreneurs could create jobs for our country. now, i do agree with the proposition that one of the ways that we could have jobs created by small businesses and entrepreneurs is to improve the country's fiscal standing and give us a low long-term interest rate in the long run and reducing our deficit is the key part of doing that. i think the issue is not if we reduce spending it's how we reduce spending. and i do think we should stop spending money to the brazilian cotton institute. i think we shouldn't spend $1.5 billion for the police department in baghdad when

american cities are laying police officer off around our country. and i certainly don't think we should be giving $40 billion in subsidies to the oil companies that made $77 billion in profit last year and are raising gasoline to $4, $5 at the pump. i think those are areas we ought to agree on and get this budget done. 11 consecutive weeks without a bill that helps small businesses and entrepreneurs create jobs is 11 weeks too many. i do, however, mr. speaker, want to compliment the majority on a good decision they have made in this bill. there's an argument about -- in this country about whether to repeal the health care bill or not. we think that would be a surrender to the insurance industry and hurt the american people. we are against that repeal. and there's an argument in this country about whether planned parenthood should continue to get funding for women's health services. most of us think it should, and

many on the other side think it should not. these are legitimate debates. they are not debates that should result in a shut down of the federal government, however. the right thing to do is to agree on the budget and then agree to disagree on repealing the health care bill and funding for planned parenthood, later down the road. and i would commend the chairman of the appropriations committee and the chairman of the rules committee for putting on the floor this afternoon an extension that does not defund the health care bill, that leaves it in place, and an extension that does not defund the planned parenthood, that leaves the funding for that in place. i think that's the result we should have in the long run. i think the budget that we adopt between now and september 30 should continue to fund the health care bill as this bill does, and should continue to fund planned parenthood as this bill does. but i commend the majority for its decision to leave those issues out of this bill so that

the issue of a government shut down -- i would ask for additional minute. mr. mcgovern: i yield an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: i thank the speaker and my friend. so that these issues are not wrapped up in this. look, there is a significant national debate about whether insurance companies should be able to deny someone health coverage because they have leukemia or diabetes. we think they shouldn't be able to do that because of pre-existing conditions. others disagree with us. . we think if a young woman needs geicological help that there needs to be a planned parenthood available to her. others disagree with that. we respect that debate. but to tie up the operation of the marine corps and the f.b.i. and the other aspects of this government over those social policy disputes is a big mistake. it's a mistake the majority has

avoided in this resolution that's before us today, and i think that's a wise choice. i hope that the majority continues to avoid that choice. let's agree on a budget that creates the conditions to help small businesses and entrepreneurs put america back to work and let's leave the political debate out. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i'd ask my friend from massachusetts if he has any remaining speakers? mr. mcgovern: we had one other speaker but he's not here. i'm prepared to close if the gentleman wants me to. mr. woodall: i'll defer to your good judgment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, as i said at the beginning, these little short-term continuing resolutions are no way to run our government. and beyond the social debate that we're having here on a variety of issues, the fact of the matter is that two-week,

three-week continuing resolutions puts an incredible burden on our local communities and our federal and state governments. they are not sure whether next week we might cut an entire program or the following week we might cut it or sometime down the road so there's uncertainty and that uncertainty is having an adverse impact on our economy and having an adverse impact on economic development all across this country. and so we need to get serious about negotiating a compromise with the senate and with the white house and get this year's business done. and, again, the united states senate has put a number of offers on the table. the one that the majority leader reid put on the table the republicans wouldn't let come to the floor. mr. speaker, one of my chief concerns about h.r. 1, which is basically the republican

continuing resolution, is that it has created a climate in washington that makes it unfashionable to worry about the poor and the most vulnerable. turning our backs on the most vulnerable in our country doesn't make them go away. there is a cost, and all of us pays for that cost. we need to get serious about job creation, putting people back to work. that's the way you reduce the deficit, that's the way we grow out of this economic crisis we are in. and yet here we are in march and nobody is talking about jobs. we talked about everything else, but the republicans have yet to bring a jobs bill to the floor. and i suggest to my republican friends, rather than this ideological rigidity, this allegiance to this bill, h.r. 1, which is filled with reckless and harmful cuts, i suggest to my colleagues that they understand that to get a deal here requires some compromise. and i think -- i would urge them

to get about that business. i would also echo what mr. pallone said earlier. you know, we're going on vacation next week. rather than a vacation, maybe we should finish the work of this year. you know, rather than having members go back and go on could he dels overseas or -- codels overseas or go on vacations, let's proside some certainty to our city mayors and councilmen. let's provide some certainty that the funding that they're depending on will be there. so having said all that, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question and on this closed rule and i would also urge them to vote no on the underlying bill. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. i say there are a number of

things we agree on across this body that the gentleman from massachusetts has very strong feelings about paying for the bills that we create today. i share his passion, and i look forward to getting into the business of paying for those bills. what i do know is we're not paying for the bills today. what i do know when i showed up for congress on january 3 of this year that there was no spending plan to get us past march 4, no spending plan. just to be clear. showed up as a brand new member of congress in january to learn that getting about the business means putting together a funding bill before march 4 because the previous congress didn't take care of business. now, i know my friend from massachusetts wasn't in charge of the other side of the aisle last year and he certainly wasn't in charge of the senate, although we all wish we could be in charge of the senate. but the business didn't get done, and that's why we're here

today. that's why we're here today. it's the first reason why we're here today, to take care of business that didn't get done last year. but the second reason, mr. speaker, and the more important we're here today is because we said when we took over this body on january 5 that we would not go along with business as usual. it would have been a nothing, a nothing to pass a bill that the president would sign that would say, hey, keep funding the government the way you've been funding it. keep rack up the deficits you have been racking up. it would have been easy except for my conscience. except for the conscience of the folks who were elected with me in november. except for our principles it would have been easy. we chose the road less traveled that said, no, we're not going to put it off. there's always a reason to wait, mr. speaker. there's always a reason to wait and we said, no, we are going to begin making the tough decisions

today. today. today was back in february and we're still waiting on the senate to get to the table so we can have some of those negotiations. but i will say to my friend from new jersey, who was so terribly pleased that the rogers was not included in this bill. if you think i'm done fighting for life, you're mistaken. if you think for a minute that i'm done working to defund planned parenthood and its work that it's doing with federal dollars, you're mistaken. if you think for a minute that i have given up on ripping every nickel out of the budget that belongs to obamacare and the nationalization of our health care system, you are mistaken. and if you think for a minute that i'm going to stop trying to repeal every single one of the job-killing energy price hiking regulations that the e.p.a. is

promulgating across this country, chaining our small businesses down, you are mistaken. that fight might not be today. today is about cutting $6 billion out of a budget that our children are not going to have to repay. today is about keeping the government open for three more short weeks to give our friends in the senate a chance to come to the table. but, mr. speaker, that day of reckoning is coming. the day of reckoning is coming because these are ideals that deserve the attention of this body. these are decisions that cannot be kicked down the road even further. these are decisions of principle on which compromise is often not an option. sometimes you just have to take the vote and somebody's going to win and somebody's going to lose. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of this rule. i rise in strong support of the

underlying bill, and with that i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is adopted. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker. i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the concurrent resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 30, resolved, that when the house adjourns on the legislative day of thursday, march 17, 2011, friday, march

18, 2011, or saturday, march 19, 2011, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its majority leader or his designee it stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on tuesday, march 29, 2011, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution whichever occurs first. and that when the senate recesses or adjourns on any day from thursday, march 17, 2011, through friday, march 25, 2011, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its majority leader or his designee it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on monday, march 28, 2011, or such other time on that day as may be specified in the motion to recess or adjourn or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first. section 2, the speaker of the house and the majority leader of

the senate or their respective designees acting joiptly after consultation with the minority leader of the house and the majority leader of the senate should notify the members of the house and senate respectively to reassemble at such place and time as they may designate if, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the concurrent resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the concurrent resolution is adopted. goverpbgoverp mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. mcgovern: we haven't finished our work. i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately 1:00 p.m.

veteran who passed away that's expected to get under way sometime after 4:00. we've been covering that online at c-span.org with a look at the casks, frank buckles lying in honor at the national cemetery. you can follow that live at c-span.org.

again, the u.s. house gaveled out into recess a few minutes ago. they should be back in shortly. they said 1:00 p.m. eastern, to pick up on on the votes for the short-term continuing resolution. the spending for fiscal year 2011. a three-week measure this time. the house next week will be -- will be out of town, will be in recess, and in a work period, a district work period for members. on the spending bill that's coming up today, "the wall street journal" writes this morning that an increasing number of republicans say they're losing patience while lawmakers work on a bill that fubbeds the government until --